With all the class action lawsuits being filed against the gun manufacturers with the ultimate agenda of disarming the public, would you please write to your local Mayor the Judges and everyone else that will be involved in these cases and ask them to have there bodyguards give up there armored vehicles and guns first as a good example to the public befor they try to push another one of those ever-more-frequent do as I say and not as I do things off on us! The only possible way to stop the problems in this or any other country is start with this generation of children and...

-- BigGuy (supersite@acronet.net), April 28, 1999

Answers

These Mayors wouldn't dare do this if it wasn't politically expedient in their towns. In my experience (with Chicago) citizens have bought gun control hook line and sinker. Ironically the people I know that support gun control politically, have their own little illegal stash. It's a bit like speed limits. People think it's a good idea for everyone else, but then drive as fast as they please.

I hope people do write, and make a big noise, but I'm not holding my breath.

Guns in Chicago are like drugs. You have to be drawing quite a bit of attention to yourself to ever get busted. And let's not forget, money can buy anything. Even cops. (who always have quite a stash of guns in their homes. (BTW I support cops, many are heroes, not all are bad) I grew up in a neighborhood with a high residential concentration of cops (lowest crime district in the city, coincedence?) my biases are from years of up close & personal experience.

We don't own guns (yet) but I am starting with my children. When Columbine was on the news, my nine year old son turned to us and said "But guns aren't for killing! They're for protecting your home and for getting food" He was as baffled by what happened as everyone else, to spite all of his violent video games. Parents can use these games, movies, and public atrocities as opportunities for educating our children. (BTW -- the media uses them to educate our kids on how to commit crimes...'look at all this bomb building info you can get quickly and easily on the web' for example. Let's tell everyone exactly how they pulled this off. Sigh. Bad freaking idea!)

Many wars were won & lost before guns were ever invented. People will kill with rocks if they are determined to murder. Our society loves to treat symptoms rather than diseases. It is one of our greatest faults.

...rant mode off.

-- Deborah (infowars@yahoo.com), April 28, 1999.

I am a advocate for the responsible usage of fire arms, but the reality is that we don't need as a society for people to legally own assault guns. You can't use the guns for hunting, and the practicality of the usage is limited to basically going "people hunting" in the crudest way possible.

The legislation is being presented to toughen existing laws on allready illegal guns. So if you have them, you are breaking the laws of the United States. Would you be a person wanting the ownership of automatic rifles being revoked if someone in your family was sensely killed by a murderer that used the gun to kill her or her?

Galatians Ch 3 verse 21

"Is the law then opposed to the promises of god? Certainly not! For if the law had been given that could make alive, then righteousness would indeed come through the law."

But if your opposition comes from fears of conspiracies of a New World Order, Clinton dictatorship, ect, then nothing can otherwise convince.

-- Pat (BAMECW@aol.com), April 28, 1999.

Pat,

Please give your definition of an 'assualt weapon.'

Not trying to flame (or start a flame war...) just trying to establish a common baseline for discussing the issues.

thanks.

J

-- j (sandpine@juno.com), April 28, 1999.

...and fully automatic weapons are LEGAL to own by doing the paperwork and paying $200 to BATF.

It's always the user/buyer/owner that determines what happens - not the equipment...

-- j (sandpine@juno.com), April 28, 1999.

Pat,

The lawsuits in Chicago have nothing to do with assault weapons.

But thanks for being insulting (NWO junk), it really makes this forum a pleasant place to be.

BTW your Galations quote is completely out of context. It is speaking of God's law of the old testament in comparison to grace of new testament. Not the laws of man.

God appoints our leaders (and calls us to pray for them), but in a free society such as ours we have the power & rights (and responsibility) to shape the laws... oust a leader, & at the very least the freedom for public discourse.

God allowed an opportunity here in the good ole U.S. of A. and if we blow it we are fools of the highest order. Our constitution says all men are created equal. Not that our leaders can do as they please and we must sit silently by.

If people's hearts weren't sick, assault weapons would not be an issue. You can't legislate morality. Criminals will get assault weapons if they want them. People get any illegal narcotic they want. What makes this different?

Just wait until your freedom of speech is threatened. Will you break the law to quote Galations? Would God ordain that? Get ready, the right to bear arms is not the only right being threatened right now.

-- Deborah (infowars@yahoo.com), April 28, 1999.

Hey, I've got it-- let's pass a law and make murder illegal!!!! What a swell idea, huh?

Seriously, I hope that if our citizens are ever forced to rise in opposition to tyranny, that they have something more effective for the purpose than shotguns and single-shot rifles. That would call for effective weapons, "assault guns" as Pat calls them. Take the long view, read some history. In 1900 no one in his right mind would have predicted the genocide that would occur in Germany. After all, it was a civilized country. They had laws!

-- Max Dixon (mcdixon@konnections.com), April 28, 1999.

Here is part of the Assault Weapons Ban Act of 1994. Please note that I am excluding sections that pertain to A)Juveniles B)Fire Arm salespersons C)Punishment for those found guilty. As these sections do not pertain to the following discussion.

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L.103- 322), as signed by President Clinton on September 13, 1994, contains four major gun control provisions:

I. Assault Weapons Ban: The 1994 crime bill effectively bans the future manufacture and importation of semiautomatic assault weapons and specifically exempts hunting and sporting weapons. It:

A. Bans the future manufacture and importation of semiautomatic assault weapons; all currently-owned guns are grandfathered.

B. Defines semiautomatic assault weapons both with a list and thorough objective criteria.

1. The bill lists 19 types of semiautomatic assault weapons which would be banned.

2. The bill also uses objective criteria to designate other guns as semiautomatic assault weapons. Those criteria are very specific:

(i) In the case of a rifle, the weapon must be a semiautomatic, AND able to accept a detachable magazine, AND have at least 2 of the following 5 features: folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, threaded barrel for flash suppressor, grenade launcher.

(ii) In the case of a pistol, the weapon must be a semiautomatic, AND able to accept a detachable magazine, AND have at least 2 of the following 5 features: magazine attaches outside the pistol grip, threaded barrel for silencer, barrel shroud, unloaded weight of 50 ounces or more, semiautomatic version of a machinegun.

(iii) In the case of a shotgun, the weapon must be a semiautomatic, AND have at least 2 of the following 4 features: folding stock, pistol grip, fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds, ability to accept a detachable magazine.

C. Contains express exceptions for hunting and sporting firearms both with a list and through objective criteria.

1. The bill lists 670 types of hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns which would be explicitly exempted from the ban. Also verifies that because a weapon does not appear on the exempted list does not mean that it is not exempt. Other weapons that do not fit the assault weapon criteria outlined above can be added to the exempted list.

2. The bill also uses objective criteria to explicitly exempt hunting and sporting guns. Those criteria are very specific:

(i) Any gun that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action.

(ii) Any gun that has been rendered permanently inoperable.

(iii) Any gun that is an antique firearm (which is defined in current law).

(iv) Any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition.

(v) Any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.

D. Contains explicit exceptions for governmental and experimental use.

E. Bans the future manufacture and importation of large-capacity ammunition magazines except for manufacture and sale to law enforcement.

The bill defines large-capacity ammunition feeding devices as those magazines which can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, but does not include tubular magazines for .22 caliber rimfire ammunition. Large capacity ammunition feeding devices produced for government use must have an identifying serial number. In prosecutions for illegal possession of a large capacity magazine produced after the date of enactment, the burden of proof is on the government.

This is what is legally defined as a "Assault Gun." And what I mean by supporting the ban of these fire arms. As any gun falling under this law passed in 1994 is illegal to own.

Response now for: Deborah

BTW your Galations quote is completely out of context. It is speaking of God's law of the old testament in comparison to grace of new testament. Not the laws of man.

This is just going to be different interpretations of what myself and yourself read. And not really able to be debated. I interprete this passage that laws come from God, as Verse 20 in the same chapter sayss, "Now a mediator involves more than one party: but God is one." That is where I came to this translation from. That the Old Testament was in reference to a small society living together, and then the new purpose of law in a larger society. But everyone is entitled to their interpretation.

God appoints our leaders (and calls us to pray for them), but in a free society such as ours we have the power & rights (and responsibility) to shape the laws... oust a leader, & at the very least the freedom for public discourse.

Can't argue you on this point, but being given the right to vote for whom you want in office is what our society goes by. Voting is the way to change the direction of our nation.

God allowed an opportunity here in the good ole U.S. of A. and if we blow it we are fools of the highest order. Our constitution says all men are created equal. Not that our leaders can do as they please and we must sit silently by.

All men are created equally and we have Natural Rights. But do you have time to vote on bills in Washington? Do you attend every local vote, every court trial? Nobody can, and that is why we have a Representative Democracy, that a person would vote for you. If you don't like how your representatitve votes? Then inform the office of the representative. Or speak when the person is up for election by voting.

If people's hearts weren't sick, assault weapons would not be an issue. You can't legislate morality. Criminals will get assault weapons if they want them. People get any illegal narcotic they want. What makes this different?

Banning certain firearms from being sold is not legislating morality. Passing a law outlawing adult films would be legislating morality. But I interpret your next idea as not having any laws at all? Why have speed limits if people are just going to go over it anyways? Why have red lights at intersections if people can go through them? A man or woman can't hit one another in the home or a child, why not just allow it since it is in their own home?

Just wait until your freedom of speech is threatened. Will you break the law to quote Galations? Would God ordain that? Get ready, the right to bear arms is not the only right being threatened right now.

Thomas Jefferson wrote that the people have the right to overthrow a unjust goverment. I believe it, and think that it could possibly at one point in time could happen. But the governement has yet to come in and forcibly take away the rights of people on a mass scale that would warrant such a move.

And the scripture from Galatians says any law that can bring righteousness through it. Banning free speech is not justifiable, as it does not put a person at physical harm. Saving many lives though from someone that have legally purchased a "Assault" firearm for the purpose of shooting another person for protection is righteos I feel in the heart of our Lord.

-- Pat (BAMECW@aol.com), April 28, 1999.

Deborah said "BTW I support cops ... I grew up in a neighborhood with a high residential concentration of cops (lowest crime district in the city, coincedence?) ..."

Not a coincidence -- Word gets around to potential burglars, muggers, that in that neighborhood they are likely to get their asses shot off. They know that it's better to attack defenseless people rather than those that might be armed.

The second ammendment is not about shooting ducks and deer. It is about protecting oneself -- from private local criminals, from government criminals (politicians and bureacrats and their "muscle" -- cops, sheriffs, FBI, ATF, etc.), and international criminals (agressors to the U.S., not some wog chieftan offing his subjects, like in Kosovo).

The INTENT of the 2nd ammendment was that every able bodied man was considered part of the militia, and to have an effective militia, he would have free access (SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED) to the ASSAULT WEAPON equivalent of the day, and shall be able to carry, use, practice (WELL REGULATED) with them.

The "assault weapon" of the day was the rifle. Today it is the automatic rifle or pistol. The idea was that the average person, part of the militia, WOULD HAVE WEAPONS EQUAL TO THAT OF ANY FOREIGN ARMY. Remember that this was in the days before the U.S. had a standing army. (Which is used for illegal foreign adventures by your government, not for defense of the country.)

"Regulated" in the context means controlled of practiced, sort of in the sense of a regulator maintaining a clock or machine, not a bunch of government laws, rules, and "regulations."

Klinton's latest "Save the children" -- (insert lower lip tremble and/or sob here) -- krap is another step along to complete NWO control, needing a stupid, igorant, helpless, dependent populace.

Rant could continue, but won't

-- A (A@AisA.com), April 28, 1999.

Pat >>I am a advocate for the responsible usage of fire arms, but the reality is that we don't need as a society for people to legally own assault guns. You can't use the guns for hunting, and the practicality of the usage is limited to basically going "people hunting" in the crudest way possible.<<

Pat, Pat, Pat,

The Second Ammendment isn't about hunting, Pat. This may suprise you in the wake of Clinton's duck hunters speech yesterday, I know.

The Second Ammendment protects the right of all of us to bear arms to protect us from... c'mere... lean in...closer...

the government, Pat. That's right!

If everyone of the Yugoslavian refugees had an 'assault weapon' in their homes, do you think they would all be in tents now? We won't mention Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot or Mao and what they did to an unarmed populace.

Wake up, Pat. Either you are for gun control and the power over us peasants that that gives any government, or you are for the right of each and every one of us to defend ourselves in the most desperate of times. ( again, think Kosovo )

There is no middle ground here, bucko. Find your balls and take a side.

Will

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), April 28, 1999.

Will: Well said.

-- A (A@AisA.com), April 28, 1999.

There's a great difference between rights and capabilities.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), April 28, 1999.

The Second Ammendment isn't about hunting, Pat. This may suprise you in the wake of Clinton's duck hunters speech yesterday, I know.

Actually I have no clue about whatever your talking about on that front, but no big deal, lol

The Second Ammendment protects the right of all of us to bear arms to protect us from... c'mere... lean in...closer...

the government, Pat. That's right!

When the Article of Confederation/Constitution/Bill of Rights were written in the late 18th century, the population of abled body were the military we had. Now all citizens are not on full or part time duty, and what would be the reason to need a gun that would be best suited for a wartime situation?

If everyone of the Yugoslavian refugees had an 'assault weapon' in their homes, do you think they would all be in tents now? We won't mention Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot or Mao and what they did to an unarmed populace.

Yep, because refugees don't have the long range arsenal, tanks, and specific material that would be needed to fight a advancing army and not only just hold them off, but actually defeat. Why did people need guns to fend off Hitler, he came to power through democratic elections, and assumed dictorial power during a severe depression, and had clearly stated his objectives when elected.

Stalin came to power through communist political means, and the country was stable, so no guns would have been needed there. Pol Pot came into power through overthrowing a government, and the same with Mao.

But this is where the logic doesn't seem right. You want to be able to protect yourself from the government. But many of these people, Pol Pot, Mao came to power through violence, and because of a evil government that made them look like pacifists? Would you use your guns to defend the gov't if the need came? If yes, then the gov't would issue the gun to you.

Wake up, Pat. Either you are for gun control and the power over us peasants that that gives any government, or you are for the right of each and every one of us to defend ourselves in the most desperate of times. ( again, think Kosovo )

And you think having a legally defined assault firearm would be able to stand up to planes, tanks, bombs, landmines, ect?

There is no middle ground here, bucko. Find your balls and take a side.

Allready said it, Im against the usage the assault firearms for the fact that the protecting us from the gov't doesn't work since no gun simple supply of ammo and a assault firearm would stand up to a military force, other than a horrible and failing guerilla war campaign(See Kosovo military article from USA Today Monday edition> Of course, handguns, rifles, ect used for personal protection and sport are absolutely fine.

-- Pat (BAMECW@aol.com), April 28, 1999.

Pat,

Again, this thread was about lawsuits leveled at handgun manufacturers (which is what is happening in Chicago). I personally was not talking about assault weapons.

One thing I would like to say about your scriptual interpretation of: "Is the law then opposed to the promises of god? Certainly not! For if the law had been given that could make alive, then righteousness would indeed come through the law."

Abortion is legal. Is abortion righteous in the eyes of God? It is legal according to man. So do you really think this passage is about man's laws or God's?

I would be interested in your response, however for me this debate is over, so you will have the last word.

BTW, obviously (at least to me) I don't support lawlessness. I think gun violence is a symptom I would rather tackle the disease instead of trying to put a band-aid on it. I simply think the laws will not solve the problem, and in the long run will injure our freedom from oppressive gov. Maybe not in my lifetime, maybe my children's or grandchildren's. I don't want to pass that legacy down.

We must be as our founding fathers and look forward beyond our own lifetimes and to that of posterity.

Peace,

-- Deborah (infowars@yahoo.com), April 28, 1999.

Pat, I'm glad the majority of second amendment advocates are not as naive as you show yourself to be.

You said previously that nothing the government has done on a mass scale warrants a revolution. You are a slave. Like the Hebrews of old you sit in your chains and believe that all is well, for you have all the delights of food in front of you.

The government doesn't have to pick a fight by trying to tell you to do something you object. They already OWN you. They don't care what you believe, they only care about what you do. They care that you sign yourself into slavery every year by April 15, and they care that you baptize your children into the State by applying the State's mark (SS#) on each infant. Then they use the money they collect from you and from your children in the future to run a system of Public Education that teaches children to hate God. They teach them there are no values. They teach them that abortion is a legitimate choice. They teach them that all life came from primordial soup and that humans came from apes. Pat, you are a naive tool that the god-haters use each and every day.

-- Jim the Window Washer (Rational@man.com), April 28, 1999.

pat>>When the Article of Confederation/Constitution/Bill of Rights were written in the late 18th century, the population of abled body were the military we had. Now all citizens are not on full or part time duty, and what would be the reason to need a gun that would be best suited for a wartime situation? <<

You are being obtuse, now. I have already told you why.

pat>>And you think having a legally defined assault firearm would be able to stand up to planes, tanks, bombs, landmines, ect? <<

Absolutely.

Your assumption that a civilian population can't fight against an army is not only incorrect, but it reveals your personal unwillingness to fight and die for your right to be free. You would first surrender whatever ability to resist you have because it might be hard to win. Your kind was around in 1776, too.

Can you spell Torry?

pat >>Why did people need guns to fend off Hitler, he came to power through democratic elections, and assumed dictorial power during a severe depression, and had clearly stated his objectives when elected.<<

Yes he did, and then he CONFISCATED THEIR FIREARMS!! Since the point of my examples seems to have gone over your head, I'll try once more. Stalin, Hitler, Mao all disarmed their people under the pretense of the greater good.

Then they slaughtered them by the millions, chum.

This has been repeated ad nauseum by lesser scum ever since.

But, far be it for me to disturb your fantasy with fact...

And I suppose it is casting pearls before swine to mention the fact that, with few exceptions, the only people outside the military with assault weapons in this country are gangs and drug dealers. And it would be silly of me to point out that the only people that would obey your stupid regulation are the ones that you need not fear.

Thinking for yourself takes effort, Pat. You should tr-

Never mind...

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), April 28, 1999.

An absolute MUST READ here is the dynamite review of Lethal Laws on the JPFO site -- http://jpfo.org/L-laws.htm

The review is a significant scholarly work... not to mention the book itself.

-- Alan (foo@bar.com), April 29, 1999.

Alan,

Thanks for the link! I read it last night. Tonight, when I tried to access it, no go.

Can you assist?

Regards,

Will

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), April 30, 1999.